- Forum >
- Topic: Swedish >
- "We wanted to go home, but we…
"We wanted to go home, but we were not allowed to."
Translation:Vi ville gå hem, men det fick vi inte.
32 Comments
Why is åka not accepted? Also, I need to wrap my brain around 'men det fick vi inte.' Just how does det work in there, like 'but it/that we were not allowed'?
Åka is only used when you know you are traveling with a car or bus or something. Gå hem is the general term. I know the wording is really off with det, have a swedish apology!
I'd accept åka.
Exactly like that: "but that we were not allowed".
Can anyone explain the word order in that second part? This is one of those times that I don't understand about the whole clauses thing. Both parts make sense one their own as separate sentences, so neither is a subclause right? And what is that det hanging around in the sentence for?
Det is simply the object of the second clause, replacing “gå hem”, so that you wouldn’t repeat yourself from the first clause. You can rephrase the English here to match it a bit more closely: "We wanted to go home, but we were not allowed to do that." (i.e. we were not allowed to go home). English needs the verb to do here if you add the object, though.
On behalf of your other question, I’d also like to know! The answer “...men vi fick inte det” is also accepted. Would “...men vi fick det inte” also be or does inte have to go after the verb?
In this lesson Duolingo teaches another sentence ´Jag måste hem nu´, where I can skip gå. Can I also skip gå in this sentence, like ´Vi ville hem, men det fick vi inte.´ This was not accepted
The part vi ville hem is fine, but it makes no sense when you add the second half. If you skip the "go", what were you not allowed to do? To "want"?
In Swedish you can say instead of gå sticka or dra but i wrote duolingo said it was wrong and still don't understand why
If you sticker or drar, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going home - just that you're leaving.
That is correct but i guess that we can say somthing like "jag ska dra eller sticka hem eller hur?
Sure, but it's not suitable without proper context. If the source sentence had said e.g. "leave" then it could have been argued. It would still have been colloquial, though.
1178
"vi ville åka hem" är fel, det måste vara "vi ville gå hem", men jag förstår inte varför jag har inte rätt! Jag har alltid sagt "jag åker hem"!
It's grammatical but very unidiomatic, sounds stiff or old-fashioned.
At least colloquially, but I'd be hesitant to accept it as a translation.
- 2026
nobody says that we must "walk home" it says "go home" which means that it can be by car by train or bus for example so "vi ville åka hem men vi fick inte" should be accepted in my opinion
I tried "vi ville hem men det fick vi inte" but it wasn't accepted.
Last week, I learned how "gå" isn't necessary with "måste" (Vi måste hem nu), and in the discussion for that sentence, https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/6590040, Ezra746950 asked whether this applies to other modals, then Ezra quoted Arnauti as saying the following, but there's not actually any post from Arnauti with this:
There is a handful of verbs, all of them modal verbs, that can behave this way – ska or vill are the ones I can think of right now. Jag vill hem means 'I want to go home' Jag ska hem means 'I am going home, I am headed home'. "
- 1453
Yes, that's interesting. It's quite alright to say vi ville hem meaning 'we wanted to go/get home', but you can't add a second clause like this because then the verb fick in it has nothing to refer to. Like, we weren't allowed to – what? So either Vi ville gå hem men det fick vi inte or something like Vi ville hem men vi fick inte gå hem (which doesn't sound great because hem is repeated, so in reality you'd be more likely to hear Vi ville hem men fick inte gå 'We wanted to go home but weren't allowed to go/leave*).
I wrote "... men vi fick det inte.", but it was marked wrong. I read this sentence construction (same order of subject verb object as in a main clause after "men ...") sometimes in the news like here: https://www.unt.se/sport/linjespelarna-dominerade-i-skakig-vm-start-5463376.aspx . Why does duolingo mark it as wrong?
In German you could translate "... but we were not allowed to." with: 1) ... aber DAS durften wir nicht. (emphasis on the DAS/object using inverted subject / object order like in the provided Swedish duolingo solution: "... men det fick vi inte") 2) ... aber wir DURFTEN das nicht. (emphasis on the "not allowed to" using normal word order, Swedish equivalent: "... men vi fick det inte")
In Swedish there is even a third variant: "... men vi fick inte det", which is not possible in German by translating directly as "... aber wir durften nicht das" is incomplete (unclear "das"), but would be possible to translate as "... aber wir durften nicht (gehen)".
Could somebody explain the nuances in meaning of all three variants, please? And if I and some news outlets are wrong using variant 2, explain why that is the case? If variant 2 is uncommon or unidiomatic, it would be good to have kind of a "yellow/warning" evaluation with some explanation why instead of getting it marked instantly wrong without any explanation why (although it is grammatically correct + a correct translation, although not "native"). I think any Swedish person would understand it, though might be a bit surprised by the "non native"/uncommon phrasing.
Swedish and German are actually very similar here: men det fick vi inte emphasises the det as you describe in German, and men vi fick inte det emphasises the fick as you also say.
However, men vi fick det inte is not grammatical in Swedish. The example you found has inte riktigt, not just inte, so the inte is part of another construction and doesn't apply here.
Obviously, you'd still be understood, but it's not correct.
What (if anything) is the difference between VI FICK INTE and DET FICK VI INTE?
